[Closed] There must be a general election

need 66% of MP's and tories are not going to support it whilst they dont have a leader/PM

Wont happen so a pointless discussion.

Pretty easy to build up pressure on a party in disarray.

Plus as I said there's the democratic principle at stake here. They can't now deny that.

[i]After all I thought this was all about democracy? [/i]

Sucker.

b r - Member
After all I thought this was all about democracy?

Sucker.

It's not going to happen for the reasons given by JY, but it would be interesting if it did. Could the Labour party campaign on a platform of ignoring the referendum?

won't happen if people just go, oh it won't happen..

Pretty easy to build up pressure on a party in disarray.

Which party is this?

If any party campaigned on an IN ticket and got a majority where would that leave us? Divided, undemocratic and probably in a weaker position with the EU than we were. I fear the cat is out of the bag and isn't easy to get back in, or to be sure whose curtains it's going to ruin next.

[quote=seosamh77 ]won't happen if people just go, oh it won't happen..

you're right none of this will happen because i pointed out the facts to you 🙄

aye cause there's "facts" right now, that's what all this is predicted on, and you're the oracle of fact. 😆 right ye are...

You know how democracy is supposed to work, those at the top are supposed to bend to the people's will.

Which is why we have capital punishment - oh hang on...

If any party campaigned on an IN ticket and got a majority where would that leave us?

No party will campaign on an IN ticket, the option whether or not to remain in the EU no longer exists.

Could the Labour party campaign on a platform of ignoring the referendum?

The referendum is no longer an issue. Our relationship with the EU, and the rest of the world, is.

EDIT : Sorry aracer I've just realised that I misread what you meant - you meant ignoring the referendum [i]result.[/i] I thought you were suggesting that they had ignored the referendum, an accusation leveled at Corbyn.

Well no, they can't ignore the referendum [i]result.[/i]

aracer - Member
Which is why we have capital punishment - oh hang on.

I thought this was a brave new world? Are youse really just going to sit back and allow yourselves to be shafted?

fyi, support for death penalty is below 50%.

I explained what is required for a general election and why it wont happen - you can negate this fact or shoot the messenger because you dont like the fact the choice is yours

Yes I understand democracy and i think the peoples will was to leave. Just because I dont like this i dont think its reasonable or democratic to claim it meant something else.

YMMV and best of luck in your campaign.

no you explained why you think it won't happen, not why it won't happen.

It won't happen if people just sit back and watch it all unfold.

The 66% is easily achievable.

Dunno if you noticed but the scottish campaign is well under way, I'm actually quite worried about england and wales, youse need to get off your arses.

No party will campaign on an IN ticket, the option whether or not to remain in the EU no longer exists.

I read that the Lib Dems policy is to rejoin the EU.

Well in that case I wsih you the best of luck persuading the party in power, in disarray, with no leader to vote itself out of power and have an election.

They'll have a leader soon enough. But you crack on, sit back and enjoy the tory carve up.

Liam Fox saying Article 50 need not be triggered and calls for 'period of calm'. Smacks of regret.

I've never voted Labour but if they did stand on an IN ticket I would vote for them. Or any other pro-EU party. Article 49 permits countries to rejoin EU.

I read that the Lib Dems policy is to rejoin the EU.

Well they've found something to keep themselves busy for the next few decades on the fringes of politics. That's nice, it gives them a reason to exist.

Cameron has played a blinder by resigning before enacting article 50. Who is willing to take on his job and "captain" the UK through what lies ahead? It's not going to be pretty untangling ourselves from the EU, the question is, just how painful will it actually be? No one can come out of that process looking good.

^ this,

That is probably why BoJo and Pob looked so glum at their "victory" conference yesterday

pinched from fb :

From the guardians comments section:

If Boris Johnson looked downbeat yesterday, that is because he realises that he has lost.

Perhaps many Brexiters do not realise it yet, but they have actually lost, and it is all down to one man: David Cameron.

With one fell swoop yesterday at 9:15 am, Cameron effectively annulled the referendum result, and simultaneously destroyed the political careers of Boris Johnson, Michael Gove and leading Brexiters who cost him so much anguish, not to mention his premiership.

How?

Throughout the campaign, Cameron had repeatedly said that a vote for leave would lead to triggering Article 50 straight away. Whether implicitly or explicitly, the image was clear: he would be giving that notice under Article 50 the morning after a vote to leave. Whether that was scaremongering or not is a bit moot now but, in the midst of the sentimental nautical references of his speech yesterday, he quietly abandoned that position and handed the responsibility over to his successor.

And as the day wore on, the enormity of that step started to sink in: the markets, Sterling, Scotland, the Irish border, the Gibraltar border, the frontier at Calais, the need to continue compliance with all EU regulations for a free market, re-issuing passports, Brits abroad, EU citizens in Britain, the mountain of legistlation to be torn up and rewritten ... the list grew and grew.

The referendum result is not binding. It is advisory. Parliament is not bound to commit itself in that same direction.

The Conservative party election that Cameron triggered will now have one question looming over it: will you, if elected as party leader, trigger the notice under Article 50?

Who will want to have the responsibility of all those ramifications and consequences on his/her head and shoulders?

Boris Johnson knew this yesterday, when he emerged subdued from his home and was even more subdued at the press conference. He has been out-maneouvered and check-mated.

If he runs for leadership of the party, and then fails to follow through on triggering Article 50, then he is finished. If he does not run and effectively abandons the field, then he is finished. If he runs, wins and pulls the UK out of the EU, then it will all be over - Scotland will break away, there will be upheaval in Ireland, a recession ... broken trade agreements. Then he is also finished. Boris Johnson knows all of this. When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act.

The Brexit leaders now have a result that they cannot use. For them, leadership of the Tory party has become a poison chalice.

When Boris Johnson said there was no need to trigger Article 50 straight away, what he really meant to say was "never". When Michael Gove went on and on about "informal negotiations" ... why? why not the formal ones straight away? ... he also meant not triggering the formal departure. They both know what a formal demarche would mean: an irreversible step that neither of them is prepared to take.

All that remains is for someone to have the guts to stand up and say that Brexit is unachievable in reality without an enormous amount of pain and destruction, that cannot be borne. And David Cameron has put the onus of making that statement on the heads of the people who led the Brexit campaign.

That's nice for Cameron that he's artfully cleaned the bogs of the Titanic. V impressive. I'd forgot for a second that he's written himself into history alongside Anthony Eden and Lord North as one of the worst blundering PMs of all time - but it's good to see some skillful manoeuvring against his rivals.

Nope. Election in 2020. As per above zero chance of Tories having a vote of no confidence.

In any case the Referendum was won for Leave in the Labour heartlands, the decision was truely cross party

That's nice for Cameron that he's artfully cleaned the bogs of the Titanic.

Thanks for giving me my first actual laugh about this whole disgraceful mess with that analogy.

😀

Back OT: Can't see either of the main parties wanting an election anytime soon. They're both in a right old state ATM.

Jamba - you're sometimes completely nuts in your views, but you're not an idiot. Talk me though that Guardian piece from a Mail/Telegraph point of view. I wouldn't want to be the PM who calls A50 (because it will be a messy poison chalice), would you?

[quote=igm ]Jamba - you're sometimes completely nuts in your views, but you're not an idiot.

saved

Am I being unfair? Over complimentary?

Reportedly bojo has said should/when he becomes leader he will have a general election to validate his mandate. I guess he may want to negotiate some concessions before this with the EU to avoid triggering a50 or a coalition government may have the same effect

jambalaya - Member
Nope. Election in 2020. As per above zero chance of Tories having a vote of no confidence.

In any case the Referendum was won for Leave in the Labour heartlands, the decision was truely cross party

This out vote has opened pandoras box, and the people have not voted for a way forward. The debate was an utter joke in that respect.

We need some democracy.

There is nothing in the tory manifesto about how to leave europe, they have no mandate to do as they please.

We need some democracy.

we do, its just the remain voters don't seem to want to acknowledge it lol

Indeed it would be easy to argue that we should have the right to decide who leads us out of Europe and conducts the negotiations. Having a hardline out PM/government would give a very different result to a previously Remain PM/government.

But do you trust the electorate to make this decision...

Jamba - you're sometimes completely nuts in your views, but you're not an idiot. Talk me though that Guardian piece from a Mail/Telegraph point of view.

I can't find the original article on the Guardian website (all google searches of the article take me to social media sites) so I don't know who the author is.

But I did find another article in the Guardian which complete contradicts the claims made in that article.

So not from a Mail/Telegraph point of view but from another Guardian point of view :

[i]In his resignation speech, David Cameron made it clear he was in no hurry to push the button. “A negotiation with the European Union will need to begin under a new prime minister and I think it is right that this new prime minister take the decision about when to trigger article 50 and start the formal and legal process of leaving the EU,” he said.

[b]As such, he has done a favour for the people who did most to unseat him – Boris Johnson and Michael Gove.[/b] Both have argued there should be no hurry to pull the trigger: doing so would set the clock ticking, putting Britain at a negotiation disadvantage at a time when its political class is in disarray. [/i]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/jun/25/article-50-brexit-debate-britain-eu

The article also points out :

[i]The process is designed to give the EU the upper hand over the departing state, according to Andrew Duff, a former Liberal Democrat MEP, who helped devise article 50. “We could not allow a seceding state to spin things out for too long. The clause puts most of the cards in the hands of those that stay in.”[/i]

So the EU can do absolutely nothing to kick out a member state which hasn't fallen foul of article 7.

Delaying triggering Article 50 makes sense as not doing so puts the UK at an disadvantage and it also puts most of the cards in the hands of the EU.

According to the Guardian.

And btw claiming that Johnson didn't really want the referendum to go in his favour is nonsense. The fact that it has done so gives him a huge advantage in his ambitions to become Tory Party leader, which after all was the main reason why he chose to be the self-appointed leader of the Leavers (although personally I think he will fail).

Had it not gone in his favour he would have had to kiss goodbye to his leadership ambitions. As the previous article states, "When he acts like the dumb blond it is just that: an act".

how delaying is democratic ?

people have voted to leave the EU .

So do you want the tories to go WTO, EFTA, negotiate something different. Will you accept free movement, shengen? How will the independent government fill the EU funding gap now, will it continue this or will all that funding just dissappear down a black hole? + a billion other questions that are way beyond me.

People have voted leave there is nothing about the method of leave, and there's zero about that in the tory manifesto. They have no mandate to begin negotiations.

[quote=cchris2lou ]how delaying is democratic ?
people have voted to leave the EU .

Did they vote for when?

Yes everyone thought we would be out of the EU by Monday.

Well in that case they're all ... oh hang on, we knew that already

(well obviously not quite all, but then you didn't even get a vote)

This out vote has opened pandoras box, and the people have not voted for a way forward. The debate was an utter joke in that respect.

We need some democracy.

We have just had a major exercise in democracy. If the people are/were stupid to vote for half-backed ideas then that's their look out. Its shit, but that is how it works.

You guys were happy to swallow AS's/yS's bullshit before. What is the difference now? Both debates have been utter jokes. At least one had a sensible conclusion.

Difference is we, maybe, get to protect ourselves from this eu exit, the previous argument was all based on being in the EU, despite, you now, that point that you wouldn't shut up about us not getting in, that's changed, well as long as we negotiate the break up of the union before the EU exit.

btw show me the manifesto, from anywhere, that shows how the exit should happen? voted out, aye, fair do's, and that comes with consequences, but it should not be down to 100 or so rabid tories to do as they please.

As far away from democracy as you can get. Does no-one in England or Wales think they should maybe exercise this democracy that they argued for?

poah - Member
We need some democracy.
we do, its just the remain voters don't seem to want to acknowledge it lol

We can point out how shit it will be how bad it will be but more telling is how the leaders of leave the ones shoving words at you are shit scared of following through - does that not tell you something?

In the event of an election we don't all have to tow the line and shut up. That's democracy

we do, its just the remain voters don't seem to want to acknowledge it lol

It's fine, it happened, we're leaving the EU.

However, assuming that crowing over the most pyrrhic victory since the phrase was first used isn't a new way of running an economy, [b][i][u]WHAT THE **** IS YOUR ****ING PLAN, YOU COMPLETE AND UTTER ****ER?[/u][/i][/b]

It seems a reasonable enough question to ask. Trouble is, I've not heard anyone come up with a remotely viable answer yet, beyond prevaricating on enacting A50 for as long as we can, which is hardly barnstorming independence.

we do, its just the remain voters don't seem to want to acknowledge it lol

Democracy is also having the right to continue to fight and campaign for what you believe in...

Maybe we need a think tank of 10 - 12 adults( Not BJ). Drawn from a cross section of governemnt and intellectual instituations. People who are not liars, carreers led polititions or self promoting guffers .

I would be looking at representatives from the Bank of England, Office of Fiscal studies, University lecturers , captains of industry, DOTAI ,
HMRC, law society. The people who sit in the background without making waves or have hidden agendas who didnt go to school or play croquet with DC and his cronies.

They are out there, not on STW. Feircly intelligent and alot of the time do not come out of the woodwork. Ok, so I would cross Sir Phillip Green of the list but I would have more faith in the dragons den panel then BJ and Gove at the negotiating table.

Give this team a team of helpers, a timeline, a nice mission statement because everyone loves a mission statement and let them get on with it.

Give this team a team of helpers, a timeline, a nice mission statement because everyone loves a mission statement and let them get on with it.

OK for starters...
The UK's current cost is 8.5 Billion/Year
In order to be considered acceptible it must not cost teh UK more than this figure and in many ways this should be seen as a maximum cost and should come with significant ups for the UK

Trade - The current rules work well that as a starting point/best hope need to determine what is acceptible to concede on (factor in the above). We are a country that imports more than it exports so in some ways we could play hard ball and talk about reciprocol tariffs to the UK but import fee's and a weaker pound would lead to a rise in the costs to UK citizens and business and drive up inflation - though we are not immune to poor aim with guns and the toe region.

Free Movement of people
An area fraught with problems for the UK side. Needs to balance the (irrational) fear of immigration with the need & benifit. Also consider that the EU will tie this to free trade as they have done elsewhere. There is a lot of political capital tied up in this one which makes it very hard for the UK to negotiate without upsetting those that demanded Brexit and the Reamains working out the UK has given up a lot for a worser overall deal.

Timetable
The UK has said yes, parliament & the lords come next but attempts to stall will be seen as "game playing" by the EU.

Any other key points?

Lastly the worst possible thing any UK politician could do on the topic is preface the negotiations with a table thumping, nationalistic battle call that the UK woun't be bullied and won't be pushed around and here are our demands that we want met or we are out.

Remember the 2 ways out of Article 50 are
UK & EU pass the "Divorce" Bill
[u][b]OR[/b][/u]
They don't and we go to World Trade Organisation rules 2 years and 1 day after it's triggered.

Oh and in the mean time we need to sort out a few other deals with key trading partners around the world.

The simple fact is that the only sane non-suicidal response to the referendum result is for both major parties to ignore it, or rather, explicitly reject it. There would be a summer of riots and lots of politicians would have to sacrifice their careers, but we'd get over that in a year or two which is more than could be said for the alternatives!

@Mike we're likely to be under WTO rules for years. You cannot start working in new trade deals until the negotiations under article 50 are concluded and you've leave.

As part of article 50 you cab sketch out the basis of how new deals are to be negotiated but not make them.

Article 50 is purely and simply about the past and how you're going to part-not what you're going to do going forward.

We have 12 civil servants who are qualified to negotiate trade deals. 12. I'm guessing the US, Germany and China are top of the list for us but are we for them?

Also given trade deals have always taken 5-10 years to conclude (and God knows why VL seemed to think we could accelerate this process and get better bargains at the same time) it could be 12+ years until we have anything formal in place with the EU (2 years of A50 negotiations + 10 years trade deal negotiations).

And no, the deals we negotiate won't be as good as what we have now. Who needs a deal with China for example more-us or them?

The simple fact is that the only sane non-suicidal response to the referendum result is for both major parties to ignore it, or rather, explicitly reject it.

@dannybgoode
Cheers for the clarification

Sounds about as promising as - well I can't really think of anything

and for a recent example...
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/malcolm-turnbull-has-called-for-a-double-dissolution-election-for-july-2-2016-5
The AUstralian government just deliberatly pushed a bill through to be voted down in order to dissolve both houses and go to the polls to sort out the lack of majority. With the majority of MP's not supporting the referendum result it would be the only decent thing to do.

Again VL had to say getting out would lead to better trade deals etc and that we'd have these in weeks (again not specifically stated but this is how the general populous interpreted the message).

Again it's something that VL will now be looking at to see how they can get anywhere close to the never nevarna they sold.

This isn't sour grapes etc this is cold fact. Trade deals take years, we're going to need 120+ of them and we're going to pushed hard by those we're looking to trade with.

This whole 'well now we're out of the EU we can trade with who we want how we want' again is technically true but ignores the logistics of actually getting a deal done in the first place.

Add to the fact no one is going time be rushing to do a deal with us until they understand what our trading relationship with Europe will be and what comes out of A50.

We are essentially hamstrung at the moment and that's the simple truth.

Again people were told this is how it would be but who needs experts?..

I'm guessing the US, Germany and China are top of the list for us but are we for them?

I think you'll be surprised, Germany for example exports a huge amount to us....far more than we do to them....think they're going to want to shoot themselves in the foot and lose out on all that money?, this works both ways, I wish more of the doom mongers could see that.

China for example could be negotiated with to allow virtually duty/tax free deals on imports to the UK, basically look at how they currently import to the EU and then undercut that deal so ours is more favorable....that's how business works.

Countries were trading with each other long before the EU, same will happen now, it's always about money and economies and seeing as we're one of the larger I don't foresee any problems negotiating trade deals.

Re. the speed of these deals, I can go along with Brexiteer politicians telling us it will be a faster process outside of the EU.....it's basic stuff, who will negotiate faster, an organisation trying to please 20-odd countries and their individual vested interests or a single country one on one with a potential trading partner?

The cries of doom are hilarious btw, carry on.

mikewsmith - Member
and for a recent example...
http://www.businessinsider.com.au/malcolm-turnbull-has-called-for-a-double-dissolution-election-for-july-2-2016-5
The AUstralian government just deliberatly pushed a bill through to be voted down in order to dissolve both houses and go to the polls to sort out the lack of majority. With the majority of MP's not supporting the referendum result it would be the only decent thing to do.

To be fair, that's close to backfiring quite badly.

Give it a year and ScoMo will be PM at this rate

I think you'll be surprised, Germany for example exports a huge amount to us....far more than we do to them....think they're going to want to shoot themselves in the foot and lose out on all that money, this works both ways, I wish more of the doom mongers could see that.

To be fair, that's close to backfiring quite badly.

Give it a year and ScoMo will be PM at this rate

@deviant-it's not the terms of the deals it's the length of time they take to conclude.

A trade deal is much more than just tariffs-it's hundreds of pages of detail; compliance with local regulation etc.

If trade deals are so simple why do they take so long?

This isn't doom mongering - it's fact. We will not have any full formal agreements in place for years. When we get them they might be favorable but there's no guarantees. Yes we still be trading in the meantime but under WTO base rules.

And @deviant- VL have told us a lot of things that they have already distanced themselves from.

I hope you're right, I really do but no one in VL was or is an international trade negotiator and it's easy to make the process sound simple.

But even if you halved the time it currently takes to say 5 years that's still a long time to be under WTO rules and how many can you negotiate concurrently? 3 max? Even doing 10 at a time would still take 60 years best case.

A general election makes sense but the conservatives are in dissarray andLabour is imploding:
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-36632956 ]Half shadow cabinet to resign[/url]

That's assuming foot shooting isn't just and English and Welsh trait.

The only certainty is that no-one's done this before and therefore there's no precedent. Everything in front of us is grey (and I don't just mean the outlook) - for sure there are articles and agreements but if both sides are willing to negotiate then there's no reason why the early discussions can't be around which of these are flexible.

As for CMD's 'cowardice' - I don't see he had the option; how can he sensibly negotiate a deal that he doesn't believe in. As it is he's handed VL a ticking bomb to defuse but with an 'indefinite' timescale. If he'd been vindictive he could have started the timer on Friday for them.

No, then he would have gone down in history as the **** who actually pulled the trigger rather than merely being the **** who loaded the gun.

^this. He has pulled a political masterstroke out of the pool of fire and shit he created for himself. I hate the man but after this have a grudging admiration for what he's managed to engineer out of the situation.

Never has Catch 22 been so eloquently demonstrated than by the choice the next PM has to make.

Indeed such is the skill of the man he will not be remembered as the PM who ****ed a dead pig...

Plan C could always be DC puts Article 50 to the vote in the commons, they vote it down, no confidence in the governemnt, trigger an election and let somebody stand on a No EU/Pro EU basis.

Surely this is what Cameron should be doing- rather than using metaphors which imply to me that the captain is deserting the sinking ship, he should be preparing to sacrifice himself in the service of his country by doing the above, especially since he was the captain who set this particular course in the interest of being re-elected.

God knows, history would surely look more favourably on him, with this referendum appearing as a minor blip in twenty or so years time. The City, I'm sure would be more than happy to provide Cameron with whatever sort of a post-political career he might desire should we remain.

Ironically, I suspect that the referendum outcome will now trigger the sort of changes in the EU that Cameron was hopeful of negotiating for ourselves.

Realistically it would probably go better if the rebellion was against somebody else to make it look a lot less like a done deal probably with Cameron getting stuck in the gents while he should be voting

Thing is in the cold light of day who's going to want to be the pm who has to:

Decide whether to trigger A50
If triggered on what grounds to negotiate
Handle the Scottish issue
What to do about the Irish border issues
Sort out what's going to happen with the border at Calais
Calm the Markets
Run the country in the meantime

Good questions, but for sure it should be someone from the side who persuaded the electorate that these issues were worth addressing.

I assume they have a plan for them, don't they?

@mike German imports are dominated by cars. Yes we could easily handle buying less new cars from Germany and Fance. Japanese make fine cars and have a bigblead in Hybrid Technology.

Personally I am fine with trading under WTO rules and an immediate Article 50

As for the Article 50 process it wouod be no surprise if the cards where stacked towards the EU. One important place where they have the weaker hand is timing, its up to us to decide.

Where this is hugely beneficial is we could tactically trigger article 50 at the moment when the Greek / eurozone debt crises reaches the end game. I doubt we would do that as could well be terminal for the whole EU, but its an option albeit a nuclear one

Once again guys, the Leave Campaign was a campaign not a Government. There is a decent chance the negotiations and exit implementation will be carried out in part by the next Government, our medium term future will be determined by who we elect in 2020 and 2025

he should be preparing to sacrifice himself in the service of his country by doing the above, especially since he was the captain who set this particular course in the interest of being re-elected.

He will put his party interests first as that is why we had this vote in the first place

he is also making sure he passes on the poison chalice and the tough decision to Bo jo as a parting milestone for his kneck

Jambalaya, what is your solution to the Irish problem? You do realise that you ripped up the good Friday agreement, don't you?

jambalaya - Member
Once again guys, the Leave Campaign was a campaign not a Government

These are just ideas we have no intention or power or idea how to follow through with

Despite it all being called bs throughout the campaign you defended it to the hilt and are now doing the same as anyone else who spouted it.

Going back to the general election question, on the Andrew marr show just now a poll said 29% of labour voters from last election will not vote labour in the future. For me this is very worrying, seems like a far right Tory govt. is inevitable, I'm not sure if Many regions will get through this

I keep hearing about the Germans wanting to export to us in the UK. Now I get that article 50 is new ground but how exactly is Germany in the EU going to negotiate a trade deal with us if (though this maybe more "leave-fact") one of the things with our being in the EU is we weren't free to negotiate or own?

As far as I'm aware this is one of the few things genuinely true in the leave campaign (even if they believed the other stuff must of what was presented as fact by both sides was conjecture at best)

They don't need a trade agreement we just do it on the WTO terms.

Here is the lib dem moment

A GE is called and they stand up and say....we will not leave Europe. Fallon has already said as much. Could this be a Phoenix moment for the Pheonis party

I was thinking the same teamhurtmore.

*for the last time it's Farron... 🙂